I seem to be continually more frustrated with what seems to be a total misunderstanding, or at least a confusion, in the minds of I suppose what would be the left or at least the anti-Trump people of what is really happening here.
The confusion seems to be between Trump’s quest for power and some of the vocal followers who are seeking a moral kingdom. And then there are the many followers who just want a bleeding opportunity to not feel left out of the “democracy”.
Donald Trump wants what he has wanted since he was a boy, I think. Which is everyone give hm what he wants, never contradict him, think he’s “really smart”, and just plain become the most important man in history because he is the only one who never failed at anything. The problem is he keeps “failing”, he’s just not really very good at being “a crook” or “a mob boss” like his grandfather and his father who tried to get power and wealth, but not the notoriety. Donald needs the notoriety that brings attention to whatever he does. He needs the acclaim of success, the acclaim of wealth, the acclaim of large crowds calling out for him.
But Trump can’t be a good crook and popularly acclaimed. Unfortunately for him there are maybe a third (but I would guess less) of the populace that think he really is what he wants to be. But there is another portion that are currently riding his coattails for an entirely different reason. They do want power, but the power they are seeking is of a different kind of authoritarianism. These are the Handmaiden’s authoritarians who want to take control of women, make sex a responsibility and not a pleasure, and reenslave most minorities, or at least push them under the rug, not to be heard from again.These are the Mike Johnsn’s, the Ron DeSantis’ and the Samuel Alito’s who believe the ails of society will be cured through asserting over behavior; i.e imposing a uniform morality and a dictatorship that conforms to their rules. But even though they win some elections they are not popular and no one, maga or not, really wants to have a “morality police” like Iran. Well, no one may be extreme,I’m sure there would be plenty to sign up to join the morality forces.
But there are the “legislative terrorists” as defined by John Boehner. The Goetz’s, the Hawley’s, The Jordan’s. While they are temporarily aligned to a certain extent, I don’t think in the long run they will remain allies. In 1824, we saw John C. Calhoun and Martin Van Buren joining forces to produce a tariff so onerous it couldn’t pass, but it did, and then Calhoun and Van Buren went separate ways, though both remained in the democratic party.
In 1950, Margaret Chase Smith, an ardent anti-communist (she introduced legislation to make the communist party illegal, became the first to publicly challenge Joseph Mcarthy, when she took to the Senate floor and gave her famous “Declaration of Conscience” speech, four years later Edward R. Murrow broadcasted his expose of McCarthy. Smith, however, went somewhat further than Murrow in her speech on the Senate floor. She stated, “Distrust became so widespread that many dared not accept dinner invitations lest at some future date McCarthy might level unproved charges against someone who had been at the same dinner party.” And in this speech she proclaimed, “It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques—techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life.”
The speech should be reread in the house before Ken Buck departs, ad in the Senate by Mitt Romney before he leaves the chamber. Maybe it wouldn’t resonate, I don’t know. McCarthy was a legislative terrorist in his time. But also a Trumpian autocrat.
The point is to make the government so dysfunctional that they can accede to power. That is the point. And if the government is seen by enough to be unable to do anything they believe they win. The more women are oppressed by abortion restrictions, the more they believe they win because the “party” who supports abortion is unable to make it permissible again. The more disharmony in the streets, shootings, challenges against minority participation and seeming inability to control “supremacist” ideology. the more people view the government out of control, the greater the likelihood they succumb to voting for an “autocratic government. Russian felt there was too much crime, the economy not providing for their needs and they voted in Putin. It’s not that people don’t want democracy, per se, they dn’t want instability.
It is not the economy stupid, it’s the instability, stupid. The economy often creates instability, but it is the instability that people vote against. Franklin Roosevelt won three times before the economy began to heal, but many of his programs did help stabilize the lives of those who were feeling down. Some didn’t feel he did. There was the communist pusch on the right and the fascist appeal to the right, and maybe because of the dual threat, people were inclined to see Roosevelt smack in the middle. I don’t know. But his government was continually seen to be acting in a manner that made people feel he was attempting to embrace them into the government. And there we have the keys to the democratic kingdom.
So why isn’t Joseph Biden seen similarly. It is not his age…but he does seem to be getting more feeble, no offense meant, I think he’s not much older than me; my worry is he may not make it. Look I don’t have his responsibilities, others in our range of age don’t have his responsibilities. Ever look at before and after pictures of presidents? Even fairly young presidents like Obama aged considerably more than most of his contemporaries did. And Joseph Biden is taking on the additional responsibility of trying to hold the “democratic” world together and watching the country in probably one of its most severe crisis of disorder.
I don't think any other Democratic candidate has a prayer’s chance, should Trump be the opposing nominee. Of course I’ve not given up hope that he absolutely won’t be the nominee. That justice will prevent his running for office. I don’t really think, however, that Trump could win even if nominated, however, unless there is something really untoward happens in Israel and we get involved in a wider war; a third party candidacy that siphons votes; or heaven forbid, Biden does become too frail and can’t run. But in a direct confrontation I’m pretty sure Bidn’s margin increases. Of course, I admit, I have a very poor track record for short-term prognostication. I mean I predicted the leaning towards autocracy with Mondale’s nomination in ‘84. I was only half right. I thought Mondale had zero chance of coming close to Reagan, that nobody wanted a “go back” candidate. But my prediction that Reagan’s economy would lead to eventually people seeking a “strongman” as Ruth Ben-Ghiat calls dictators has taken forty years.
But should Trump be removed from being the candidate, all bets are off. We will have the Handmaid dictatorship of morality; or we will have the Putin disappearance of all opponents dictatorship. In that case some of the moralists will disappear if they turn oppositional.
But at this point there is not much time for the government to do something. Since congress can’t/won’t undue the chaos but are continually creating fear and unstableness. I think Biden is going to need to take executive control. The constitution gives him the right to bypass either, or both houses of government.
Article II, Section 3:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
I don’t think this section has ever been directly challenged. But he does have the authority to send the Congress and carry on without them, While in adjournment he takes care all laws are faithfully carried out. And it also says he can adjourn one house or the other. He could just send the house home until such time as he shall think proper. Or he could then reconvene either of the chambers and with the senate pass an abortion bill, gun reform, investigate possible illegal activity by justices of the Supreme Court and at least pass a code of ethics for the court. They could also eliminate voter registration and grant every citizen eligibility to vote automatically in every state upon their eighteenth birthday. No exclusions unless imprisoned. They could do a lot with the house gone temporarily into a hiatus, if they so chose, to return the country to a degree of stability.
Something I think should be done is unionize every job in the nation with the provision of individual opt-out. And I don’t know if there is a will, but I believe things like a national bill for ranked choice, voter amendments, and strong bank reform bills should be legislated as well.
And when people go to the polls they just might be hopeful of a better tomorrow and they just might give the American democracy another chance. But unless something is done, even should the democrats hold on in ‘24, the “democracy” of the United States is in its dying gasps.
And of course Fox, and the republican candidates would decry it as authoritarian. But I don’t see how the courts could say there was any unconstitutionality in doing so because the constitution clearly authorizes it as constitutional. There was even one point when I thought Trump would send Congress home.But I’ll say it again, sometimes it takes a small bit of authoritarianism to eliminate authoritarianism.